Why Can't Finland Possess Submarines? #shorts

The prohibition on Finland possessing submarines stems from historical events and agreements made in the aftermath of World War II. While the prohibition has had a significant impact on Finland's naval forces and regional security, there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate about whether the prohibition should be lifted.

Ultimately, any decision to revise or maintain the prohibition should be made in the context of the current geopolitical landscape and the long-term interests of Finland and its neighbors.

[lomis]

No, Finland is no longer prohibited from possessing submarines. Finland renounced the arms restrictions of the Paris peace treaty in the 1990s. Finland currently has no submarines because they are very costly.

[pierluigiadreani]

Italy signed the same treaty, no aircraft carriers allowed. We got 2.

[randomhouse]

Obviously this needs to be changed, the sooner the better. It would be in everyones best interest that Finland have every means available to protect themselves from Russia.

[skunkjobb]

Since Russia has broken their promise to respect the borders of Ukraine, I think it's OK for Finland to toss that old submarine ban in the bin.

[CompagnonDeMisere]

Finland has already unilaterally cancelled the restrictions that the treaty placed on its military.

[riku]

Didn't we leave those restrictions in the 90s? Pretty sure we did and immediately bought one more fighter jets than previous limits would have allowed.

[maxpolariss]

So, another has said it already but I’ll reiterate, back when I was in the Finnish navy (I was just a deckhand, served the mandatory 9 months, 2021-2022), we asked the same thing from our superiors, why Finland doesn’t have submarines. In their eyes, since the Soviet Union had dissolved, they didn’t have to keep promises made to it and Finland could, if it wanted, get submarines. However, the problem lies in them being unbelievably costly, as Finland would have to build infrastructure for housing, maintenance and building new submarines. Even if we bought the submarines from abroad (if I remember correctly, Italy has made some Finnish ships), it could prove even more costly.

[Tounushi]

You're getting things wrong.
We aren't prohibited anymore. We broke away from that in '91.
It's just that subs are INSANELY expensive to introduce as a new component. You just can't buy a few subs and call it a day, you need logistics to support the subs, training for the officers and men and an adjustment to our naval doctrine.

Were we to get subs, I'm sure they'd be again equipped to lay mines, like our old Vetehinen-class was.

[Paladiini]

The Treaty of Paris is no longer valid

[aviationgaming]

Well they’re a NATO member now so I think she should be able to have subs

[jordansmith]

Sweden has their back on this one and NATO membership is a guarantee of their sovereignty.

[wwm]

Nothing in that prohibition about gifts. What if a country had decided to gift a sub to Finland without Finland asking for, expecting, or contracting for it? Just a "Hey Finland, you're pretty cool, have a submarine."

[boqndimitrov]

no limit is forever. look at what is happening in japan, especially with its navy. times are changing, for better or for worse.

[dissent]

All restrictions should immediately be removed.

[teemup]

This is not true. Finland withdrew from the military article (=limitations) of the Paris treaty in 1990, except the possession of nuclear weapons.

Finnish navy doesn't most likely have submarines because we have gotten very good with the naval doctrine without them and thus building new traditions, ships, training, logistics for a ship class that wouldn't add much to the Finnish navy would cost way too much for very little gain.

[firstlast]

Submarines are a form of boat. If they make something not designed to come up for air and uses AI technically it's a torpedo.

[XIIIphobos]

*Finland unilaterally renounced all it’s military restrictions (save for the one on nukes) in 1992.*

They can have submarines if they want, but its doubtful they would. Subs are very expensive to operate and Sweden (a close ally) already has great domestically produced Gotland-class ones operating in the Baltic.

[randallgschwind]

Finland deserves the right of self defense

[paullough]

Treaty was signed with a country "That no longer exists". Makes it invalid, yes?

[frankchan]

If I’m correct the Treaty of Paris was with the USSR, USA, UK & France so since USSR dissolved Russia is successor state of that treaty so unless they want to break that treaty that’s the only way to do it. The Treaty of Paris in 1947 officially ended the WWII as Finland was aligned to Germany at that time ( read Carl Mannerhiem) so the winning powers “punished” Finland with that prohibition. That is hard one to say.